This volume contains new
editions by T. Maslowski of two Ciceronian speeches from the prior half of
the year 56, the interrogation of P. Vatinius and the defense of M.
Caelius Rufus (both speeches are cited below by line number in this
edition). The former would more logically have been coupled with Pro
Sestio, previously edited by M. in this series (1986), since it
derives from that judicial process, but no matter: the important thing is
that we now have both Pro Sestio and In Vatinium testem from
this capable editor.

It has been truly said of the group of
speeches to which In Vatinium testem and Pro Caelio belong
that "tralatician and selective collations have hampered [their] textual
study."1 In this book, his previous Teubner
editions of the post reditum speeches (1981) and the Pro
Sestio, and related studies, M. is helping to alter this
situation.2 Besides the edition of the text,
In Vatinium testem is here provided, after A. Klotz, with
testimonia (pp. 2-3); Pro Caelio, unfortunately, is not.

The praefatio, written in a clear and forcible Latin, begins
with a section entitled "De Cicerone editore," which defends Cicero
against modern scholars' predominantly negative view of his work as editor
of his speeches for publication on grounds that he mixed in ex
tempore remarks without undertaking a thoroughgoing revision. This is
not, however, what one would look for in the praefatio to a
critical edition, there being no consequence for the editing of texts,
since those who have held such views have blamed Ciceronian carelessness
rather than interpolation. An article would have been a more apposite
vehicle for these remarks, but surely a reference to Stroh's discussion
would have sufficed.3

The rest of the
praefatio establishes the relations among the witnesses, rates
previous editions, and lays down the method of this one. M. has made this
tradition his own in previous studies, including the detailed
investigation coauthored with Richard Rouse.4 His reconstruction of the archetype, including a
refinement of A. Klotz's calculation of the number of lines per page (p.
XVII) is convincing, as are, in general, the stages he posits and his
evaluation of the relative worth of witnesses.5 Of particular interest are his comments on H
(Harl. 4927, s. XII ex.; pp. XXXIV ff.), the evaluation of which has
caused great difficulty. M. sees it as the offspring of a manuscript
similar to P, so that it would occupy a position between P and the y
tradition (reconstructed from G and E). But the correct readings of H that
M. cites on pp. XL-XLI are all shared with other witnesses. Everyone
agrees that H is a product of contamination and interpolation; it seems
unnecessary to posit for it a direct line to the archetype.

Unlike
In Vatinium testem, Pro Caelio had the good fortune to be
preserved in two separate strands of medieval tradition, one of which
involves the famous "vetus Cluniacensis" (C), now thought to have been
discovered in 1413 by Jean de Montreuil. M.'s praefatio provides a
useful, up-to-date account of the history of this codex and the
reconstruction of its readings from French and Italian sources (pp. XLIII
ff.). I cannot go into all details of this complex tradition, summarized
by the stemma on p. LXXXIII (with stemmata of sub-branches on pp. LXIX and
LXXXII). The upshot is a more nuanced view of the tradition than that of
Clark, who had thought to reconstruct the Italian branch of C from only
two witnesses of the fifteenth century, viz. b (S. Marci 255) and Psi
(Laur. [Gadd.] SC sup. 69).6

M. has
explored the indirect tradition with no less care. He brings out clearly
the strengths and weaknesses of the Bobio scholia (because of shortening,
more
reliable for single words than entire phrases or clauses) and the position
of the papyrus and palimpsest evidence (affiliated with C) and concludes
with a defense of the monks of Bobio against the charge of wantonly
ruining ancient books (pp. XCI-XCIII); this last part, however, again pads
the length of the praefatio without adding to one's understanding
of the value or relations of witnesses.

Judicious in assessing the
work of his predecessors, M. is justly severe with the lazy and careless
but gives credit where it is due, as to Gruter for seeing the merit of C's
Praetuttiani at Cael. 5.53, or, in general, to Lambin, A.
Klotz, and to Orelli's commentaries.

In evaluating the tradition
for Cael. as a whole, M. finds the extent to which the omega family
(reconstructed from PGEH) has been contaminated by C understated by Klotz
and not confined to P alone (pp.CIII ff.). He believes, however, that
omega was free of contamination, which entered only with a copy written in
insular script that has left some traces in the tradition (p.CV with
pp.XVII-XIX); I would have liked to see this point argued more fully. In
any case, M. follows the eclectic procedure recommended by Klotz, with
preference for no family or individual codex (p.CVI).

In general,
in spite of L.G. Pocock's fairly detailed commentary,7In Vatinium testem is today probably one of
the least studied of Cicero's speeches. It is a specimen of the
no-holds-barred invective which Cicero trained on such targets as
Catiline, L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, P. Clodius, and Marc Antony and
which does not spare even the opponent's physical deformities (cf.
§39). The speech is, however, of importance as evidence for Caesar's
consular year, in which his ally the tribune P. Vatinius played a role
which, while significant, is much exaggerated by Cicero in this speech.

Preserved, as I have said, in a single strand of the ancient
tradition, In Vatinium testem is represented by the surviving
codices P, G, E, and H (though occasionally the Bobio scholia provide a
control). M. tends to follow the oldest of these, P (= Parisinus 7794, s.
IX med.), even down to most details of orthography. He states that his
policy in orthography is to follow the practice of antiquity in each
passage (p. CVI). This leads, however, to some irritating inconsistencies,
e.g., collegas in Vat. 202 (cf. Cael. 993) but
conlegae in Vat. 217; cum Vat. 424, but
quom Vat. 45. There are other oddities, such as the spelling
relinquontur (P) at Cael. 406 whereas relinquu- is
the reading of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus (1251, s. V), which would seem to
be the likely source for the ancient spelling. Surely it would have been
preferable to standardize orthography after the model of Merguet's
Lexika, as is done, for instance, in Winterbottom's new OCT of
De Officiis.

Beneath the text are (1) an apparatus
indicating the extent of attestation in fragmentary witnesses (in Pro
Caelio only8), (2) an apparatus of
testimonies, and (3) the very full critical apparatus, usually positive.
In fact, pruning would have made the critical apparatus a more efficient
tool: by eliminating orthographical variants and corrections to
manuscripts other than P and relegating more of his own argumentation to
articles M. would have highlighted the really important information.

Some critical editions dazzle by the brilliance of the editor's own
interventions. This is not one of those, though at l. 215 M. is able to
set in the text his own supplement contemptis auspiciis, which is
of the required length and sense. M.'s edition impresses by the quieter
virtues of evidence carefully recorded and judiciously weighed in light of
Cicero's well documented stylistic practices, including use of clausulae.
I cannot list here all passages where I find his text an improvement over
that of predecessors, but I single out the treatment of ll. 205-6, where
M. shows that the accusative/infinitive construction must depend on
vides and can hardly be exclamatory, as Peterson and Cremona had
supposed.

Inevitably, no edition, even one as carefully prepared as
this, will satisfy all readers at every point; the following list of
disagreements shows that M.'s edition can and should serve as a starting
point for further exploration of textual problems:

In l. 7 M.
differs from Peterson and Pocock in preferring fui paulo in te
intemperatior fortasse quam debui of HA rather than fui paulo ante
intemperatior ... of PGE. But note that intemperatus is not
elsewhere used in antiquity with in plus accusative or indeed
otherwise than absolutely.9 In light of
this, ante is the better choice.

As tribune, Vatinius not
merely excluded the consul M. Bibulus from public places but also
attempted to extract him from his home by force (ll. 280 ff.): ...
miserisne viatorem qui M. Bibulum domo vi extraheret, ut, quod in privatis
semper est servatum, id te tribuno plebis consuli domus exilium esse non
posset? One does not seek to extract someone from exile, but rather
from a place of asylum; hence Baumeister's asylum for
exilium, recently revived by Shackleton Bailey.10 In addition, the ut-clause contains one
subject too many. Either id or domus must be intrusive. In
bracketing id, Garatoni has opted for the less likely error. More
probably domus originated as a gloss on id.11 Cicero will have written: ... ut, quod in
privatis semper est servatum, id te tribuno plebis consuli asylum esse non
posset.

It seems very likely that Cicero addressed Vatinius
throughout this interrogatio in the second person. If that is so,
then the Vatini in l. 199 will also be a gloss: ... id tibi,
furcifer, sumes, et [Vatini] latronis ac sacrilegi vox audietur hoc
postulantis, ut idem sibi concedatur quod Caesari? Likewise in l. 319
we will need to print, with the Venetian edition, Jordan, and Mueller,
oculos <tuos>, Vatini, rather than the transmitted oculos
Vatini.

Cicero makes heavy weather of an incident in which
Vatinius, to make a political point, wore mourning clothes at a banquet.
This section poses several tricky textual problems. For instance, in ll.
396 ff. we read: ita enim illud epulum est funebre ut munus sit
funeris, epulae quidem ipsae dignitatis. The sense of the
underlined
words must be something like "The banquet itself is in honour of the
celebrant" (Gardner), but how can this sense be extracted from the
transmitted text? M.'s defense of the transmission on grounds that
dignitas can be used absolutely, documented by reference to
Sest. 23 (eos ... qui dicerent dignitati esse serviendum
... vaticinari atque insanire dicebat [sc. Piso]), fails to satisfy,
because in our passage it surely must be specified that it is the host's
dignitas that is in question. And why epulae . . . ipsae?
Perhaps read epulae quidem ips<ius qui invitaverit vit>ae
dignitatis, a supplement that would fill one line of the
archetype.12 For the iunctura vitae
dignitas see Mil. 17. At 402 ff. (cum tot hominum milia
accumberent, cum ipse epuli dominus, Q. Arrius, albatus esset ... tu ...
te ... funestum intulisti), we surely need to supply albata,
which can easily have dropped out by saut du meme au meme before
accumberent, to make the contrast explicit.13 In his note on l. 414 (dominum cum toga pulla
et eius amicos ante convivium) M. has wrongly assimilated Shackleton
Bailey's conjecture to Madvig's; the former proposed insertion of
videras not before dominum, but after convivium, to
be followed by cenantis non item.14 In
the same note M. should have made it clear that the usage convivium
= convivae, invoked by some interpreters of this passage, is
post-Ciceronian.15 Finally, Shackleton Bailey
is surely right in finding difficulty with nomen epuli at 415 ff.:
quae <te> tanta tenuit amentia ut, nisi id fecisses quod fas non
fuit,
nisi violasses templum Castoris, nomen epuli... M., however, fails to
cite Shackleton Bailey's conjecture, omen epuli.16

Cicero's outrage is likewise provoked by
Vatinius' appeal to the tribuni plebis to avoid criminal
prosecution by C. Memmius (pr. 58). In this passage I find difficulty with
the formulation at ll. 446 ff.: in foro, luce, inspectante populo
Romano quaestionem, magistratus, morem maiorum, leges, iudices, reum,
poenam esse sublatam. Surely the reus cannot be placed on the
same level as these other entities and be said to have been done away
with; perhaps read in reum <constitutam> poenam, where
in
is
the reading of G and constitutam may have fallen out by saut du
même au même.

As Cicero nears the conclusion of
this
invective
he asks rhetorically (l. 518) ... si es odium publicum populi, senatus,
universorum hominum rusticanorum, quid est quam ob rem praeturam potius
exoptes quam mortem . . .? Cicero means to emphasize the universality
of the hatred for Vatinius; there would be no point in specially
emphasizing the enmity of the rusticani. Clearly we need a polar
expression like Shackleton Bailey's <urbanorum,>
rustic[an]orum,17 which, by deletion of a
syllable, yields a ditrochaic clausula; for the expression cf. Agr.
2.79; Phil. 5.20.

The praefatio does not discuss
punctuation. In this speech of interrogation M. sometimes uses the
question mark (e.g. ll. 201, 395, 460 ff.) but often replaces the question
marks used by other editors, whether the question is direct or indirect,
with periods or semicolons, a practice which, I suspect, most readers will
find to be an annoyance. On the other hand, at Vat. 91 and
Cael. 857 surely an exclamation point is needed. Finally I found
the punctuation of Vat. 75, with comma between respondeo and
the following indirect statement, less helpful than Peterson's separation
of the following cum-clause with commas.

The paired speech,
Pro Caelio, is, by contrast, one of Cicero's most studied works and
now enjoys a place in high school curricula. The speech is of interest as
a strategy for constructing an influential woman and for the urbanity with
which the orator relieves Caelius of the onus of being an adulter.
In fact, M. is prepared, like Stroh,18 to
assert that the affair between Caelius and Clodia was probably invented by
the orator for the sake of his defense (p. XII). I single out for praise
the way in 61 M. is able to clarify a passage which caused trouble for
editors who missed that in ll. 822 and 826 constitutum is a noun
meaning "agreement," i.e., appointment.

Again, to provoke
discussion, I raise a few points of disagreement:

The epithet
nobilem applied to Caelius only in Cv and Cb
is set in
the text by
M. (l. 13), wrongly, for Cicero states clearly that Caelius' father was an
eques Romanus (l. 40). M. cites in support Quint. 11.1.68; but
there not Caelius, but Atratinus is called nobilis.

In ll. 390-91 I
prefer the reading video fontem, video auctorem, video certum nomen et
caput (PGEH) as a progression from general to specific, rather than
Cv's reading adopted by M. reversing fontem and
auctorem.

A couple of lines down (l. 395) the crisp
narrative sollicitavit
quos potuit, paravit, locum constituit, attulit is not improved by
M.'s addition of quodam modo after paravit, nor do I agree
with the premise that quam of Cv at this point must
conceal some
true reading otherwise lost.19

Relative pronouns can easily drop out in transmission (for an
example see Cael. 532). I suspect that this is part of the problem
at ll. 481-82, where habes can hardly be on the same level as the
following parasti; read something like habes hortos ad Tiberim
<quos curiose> ac diligenter eo loco parasti quo omnis iuventus
natandi
causa venit.

In l. 910 Cicero gives a preview of the line of
questioning he would pursue with the nameless witnesses to the delivery of
poison: ex quibus requiram quonam modo latuerint aut ubi, alveusne ille
an equus Troianus fuerit qui tot invictos viros muliebre bellum gerentis
tulerit ac texerit. There is a play on alveus, which can be a
pool or tub in the baths but also a (hollow) container of other kinds.
Perhaps the only change needed here is either Baiter's illic for
ille or, perhaps better, transposition of ille and
an. In any case, ille with alveus makes no sense, the
alveus of the Senian baths neither having been previously mentioned
nor being famous.

A few smaller points: l. 248: Heinze is likely to
be right that Cv's de teste Fufio has its origin in a
marginal note
by a reader identifying the unnamed senator of l. 246;20 l. 338: Stroh's et ea<dem> lenior
surely
deserved to be set in the text; l. 545: bracket Graeciae with
Francken for the reasons cited in the a.c.; ll. 548-550 alii cum
voluptate dignitatem coniungendam putaverunt, ut res maxume inter se
repugnantis dicendi facultate coniungerent: Baiter thought that the
con of coniungendam should be bracketed; rather that of
coniungerent; cf. Calvert Watkins, "An Indo-European Construction
in Greek and Latin," HSCP 71 (1966), 115-19, with literature; Jaan
Puhvel, "An 'Indo-European Construction' in Arcadian," CP 65
(1970), 50-51; the wordplay of l. 185 (haerebat ... cohaerebat) is
different; l. 607: read Lambin's in <eo> erat
for the transmitted inerat (similarly at l. 811 adopt Vollgraf's
consul eum for consulem of PGEH, not Manutius'
consul); ll. 652-53: Schoell was surely right to delete actis,
navigatione, conviviis, which would not show Clodia to be a
proterva meretrix procaxque; in l. 729 PGEH correctly omit
servis, which spoils the contrast of a suis to per
ignotos; on l. 751 M. fails to cite Shackleton Bailey's
<non> religiose, surely needed;21 in l. 869 Cv's non paucos fuisse
as a
ditrochee should be preferred to fuisse non paucos of the rest of
the tradition; l. 879: surely fuerant ad hoc rogati
(CvCii), not
fuerant hoc rogati (PH, followed by M.); cf. Vat. ll.
36-37:
... ei te quos rogasset ad accusandum libros dixeris
dedisse; l.
915: we need J's si in hunc locum processerint, rather than the
otherwise transmitted in istum or istum in; at issue is not
whether the nameless witnesses went to the point of rendezvous but whether
they will appear in court; only in the latter event will they be unable to
extricate themselves (qui se nunquam profecto ... explicabunt);
this allusion then sets up the following witty contrast between the
exigencies of social life and of the courtroom.

Cross-references
from the critical apparatus to the praefatio would have been useful
on occasion, e.g., at l. 347, where the reader needs to refer to p. CVIII
for the rationale for M.'s spelling Baiias.

The volume
concludes with an Index Nominum citing, after Klotz's example, the
relevant articles in the RE.

If I have dwelt overlong on points of disagreement, I
should conclude by emphasizing that all students of these speeches owe
gratitude to M. for his tireless efforts to clarify the relations of
witnesses, especially in the C tradition. The result is, on the whole, a
better text and one founded on a fuller and more accurate citation of
evidence than we have had before.22 One looks
forward with anticipation to his edition of In Catilinam, which
will take account of the new papyrus evidence.23

[5] However,
in light of what is said on page XXIV I would have expected in the stemma
on p. XLII a line of descent connecting P2 and y, rather than
P1 and P2; I also question whether at Vat.
431 T for P is involved (see M.'s own
comment on p. XV).